BLOG: An interesting discussion on school funding
Sam Adams
An interesting discussion about school funding took place at a City Council meeting this morning that I would like your feedback on…
…should the City Council add another $5 million to the $10 million in one-time City resources yesterday pledged for schools in Portland?
The proposed additional $5 million would be used to allow more time for public input before the decision is made to close schools.
Painful as it is to those families and neighborhoods impacted, my colleagues and I recognize the need to reduce Portland Public School’s facility costs. We plan to meet with the district soon.
In the meantime, the question is whether or not we should provide them more money so the district can take more time to weigh their options?
Posted by Sam Adams on March 17, 2006
(30) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (1)
Filed Under Blog, Education, Front Page
Comments by site visitors
Did the OIC generate 13 percent returns on the PPS' 500 million dollars of PERS obligation bond proceeds held in trust for the PPS taxpayers by PERB/OIC?
That would be 5 percent more than the assumed rate of return; or represent 25 million dollars.
Posted by: ron l | Mar 17, 2006 3:57:04 PM
Consider the possibility of dedicating the 5 million to minimizing school closings.
Over the next 2 years, the city can do some deeper demographic analysis on which neighborhoods will need schools in the future given Portland's 20-30 something population. Fold into that study how Portland can attract and retain families with children. Draw the business community into the analysis as they too have a stake.
Closing schools which are succeding needlessly alienates Portland's most involved citizens, creating blowback to the council itself and all City programs.
Thanks for your focus on this and the much strengthened accountability focus on other City projects.
Posted by: Rob W | Mar 17, 2006 4:00:03 PM
Sam - a little off topic but what are your thoughts on this:
Portland Public Schools Approve Public Funding For Anti-Gay, Church Sponsored School
The Facts on Portland Public Schools' Tax Payer Funded, Anti-Gay Church-Sponsored School
Posted by: Not Happy | Mar 17, 2006 5:11:53 PM
Why not? Seriously, you haven't told us the downside of doing this.
I know it is one-time funding, but right now anything helps until Ms Phillips gets the schools sorted out properly. I think she is doing a good job and would appreciate any help.
Posted by: Steve | Mar 17, 2006 6:19:43 PM
Sam,
I believe City government is at the very least partly responsible for the declining enrollment in Portland Public Schools. Increased density, disinvestment in motor vehicle infrastructure that creates congestion, high property taxes (levies for everything) etc. have driven families fleeing to the suburbs and across the Columbia. Added to that are new are development tax abatements and urban renewal districts that have a negative impact on school funding and general fund government services.
Portland Public Schools too are not without blame. High administrative costs from the top down, golden parachutes and un-kept promises to curb educator benefit and health costs are all part of the problem.
I also take issue with the secrecy of the recently leaked school closing list. Maybe that is the way it was done in Pennsylvania, but not in Portland, Oregon. In my neighborhood three schools in a 30 block area have been closed over the past few years. Now this non–Portlander wants to close the historic icon school with the namesake of the neighborhood. With no central business district, the school is the glue that holds the neighborhood together. Closing it will only cause the neighborhood to decline. If that happens, the schools don’t deserve another penny.
There seems to be no rime or reason for the schools chosen for closure. To me it makes far better economic sense to close schools that have been failing for years such as Jefferson. The cost per student is already twice the city average and much of the surrounding neighborhood students have abandoned the school choosing to go elsewhere. Throwing more money at a failing school like Jefferson is nothing more than flushing it down the toilet. Another candidate for closing should be Ball School in North Portland. It is my understanding this school has no gym, it has a falling apart heating system and is connected to a failing septic tank and not the City sewer system. Although, it is not a school building that makes a good education system, this school appears to lack some of the basics Furthermore, the Portland Public School District can ill afford building a new school at this time, and should not even consider it, therefore these students could be moved to another building keeping classes and teachers the same. If none of this is politically correct, then political correctness needs to be thrown out the window.
I am a native Portlander and attended the Portland Public Schools system during the baby boomer years. During those times, all of my classes except one specialty class in high school had over 30 students in them. My mother now deceased, who worked in two grade school cafeteria’s before becoming a grade school secretary told me she remembered class sizes with 40 students With computers, the internet and all the new technology resources we did not have, class sizes of 30 students are not too large for PPS and should be the norm of today.
The real problem in Oregon is that school funding has been squarely placed on the backs of individuals and small business. The fact is only about 5 to 6 percent of the revenue at the state level in Oregon comes from big business and corporations. Some corporations continue to pay only the minimum tax of ten dollars a year. Higher corporate taxes must be part of the fix. With all the hype at the big business conference at the Convention Center a couple of months back where there was a call for schools to be top priority, nobody stepped up to the plate and promoted higher big business taxes. In other words, a lot of wind from a bunch of NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard) spouting off.
As for your question Sam, “should the City Council add another $5 million to the $10 million in one-time City resources yesterday pledged for schools in Portland? “
With conditions on both the school district and the City, I grudgingly would say YES.
School, district conditions must include:
Not closing more schools (except possibly Jefferson and moving Ball to another existing facility)
Significant progress must be made to curb educator health costs and benefits (its about keeping promises)
Reduce administrative costs from the top down
Rethink the Jefferson expenditures
No new school construction/reconstruction
Back off on year round schools and kindergarten
Set an average class size of 30 students K-12
Solicit parent volunteers
Report back to the City where the money goes
Lobby the legislature for higher corporate and big business taxes (this should include eliminating the corporate kicker, but not the individual kicker)..
City conditions must include:
Address the tax abatement issue, review and eliminate as many as possible, end the practice of offering new tax abatements.
Address the negative impacts of urban renewal districts on school funding and reduce the size, length and costs of the districts.
Reduce and eliminate development subsidies.
Eliminate social engineering spending.
Study the impacts of smart growth that cause families to flee the City
Investigate ways to reduce taxes and fees assessed by the City
Drop the idea of a cell phone tax.
Lobby the legislature for higher corporate and big business taxes (this should include eliminating the corporate kicker, but not the individual kicker).
Posted by: Terry Parker | Mar 17, 2006 11:25:10 PM
Let the PPS funding "crisis" play itself out. If fewer and fewer teachers are going to earn higher salaries and benefits, then class sizes will go up. Zero sum game.
It's not the city's job to fund schools.
Let's use the $15 million to make sure OHSU gets a first class tram to serve the overflow parking lots and other important OHSU buildings in South Waterfront. The real estate wealth (I mean "biotech jobs") that is created as a result of the Tram is huge coin and nobody really understands what TIF means anyway.
Condo farm subsidies create wealth and biotech jobs and you can't have condo farms and biotech jobs without a Tram, and light rail, and trolleys, and VERY PROGRESSIVE ELECTED OFFICIALS.
Schools don't create wealth or biotech jobs, and the schools are fine without a Tram. So don't worry about the schools. They'll be fine. Worry about how to build the Tram without asking those poor little developers to dig into their kid's piggy banks to close the funding gap.
IF YOU BUILD IT, BIOTECH WILL COME!
What if the Condo Developers had all the PDC subsidies they needed, and the schools had to hold a bake sale to buy a full school year.
Dude! Where's my Tram?
Posted by: Alice | Mar 18, 2006 12:00:11 AM
The reason why schools are closing is because we aren't spending billions of public dollars to build more roads in town, and thus everyone is scattering to the suburbs?
Wow, and I thought inner city housing, particularly close to Jefferson High, where I live, is in such high demand from young parents because they want to live in places where they can get out of their cars more and enjoy walkable, closely knit communities.
Sure, the tax burden has definitely been falling away from the shoulders of the big corporadoes, who employ the fewest Oregonians and who make the most money from Oregonians. Isn't that how the swindle of big money and power is supposed to work?
Let's not also forget the BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars each year--a sacred cow to both liberals and conservatives alike, mind you--that are given to both large, non-local corporations and developers. Stop these giveaways, stop paying people to move here and to have more kids than either they or anyone else can support, stop the PDC slush funds, stop the public ports funding, and stop every other aspect of the suicide economy, and voila! Plenty enough money for kids to play and learn in gorgeous, healthy settings that they can walk and bike to without fear of getting hurt.
Liberals and conservatives! Are you willing to walk the talk?? Stop the growth subsidies, and we will have plenty enough money to educate our children and care for our elderly, our poor, and our ill.
Posted by: Long View and Now | Mar 18, 2006 12:00:26 AM
The city charter does not allow for the Council to give PPS money. Period
Like so many are saying, refinement of all the "growth subsidies" Council gives could more than eliminate PPS so called funding problems.
Posted by: Lee | Mar 18, 2006 12:06:51 PM
Sam,
I don't know where you are finding the extra $5M to slow down the school closures, but absolutely YES.
Regardless of the arguments of poor management in the past, the current Superintendent and the school board are serious about minimizing costs and maximizing student performance. The tired arguments of mismanagement and wasteful spending by PPS are just that - old and tired. We have great teachers, committed parents and strong school board. The problem with school funding is just that - the State legislature and governor failed to adequetely estimate the budget and completely failed to adequetely fund all schools in Oregon.
I am in favor of anything we can do to prevent PPS from being forced to close schools urgently.
While I believe Vickie Phillips is very serious about having schools that have about 500 students to minimize costs, maximize the school space and allow for extra programs, I firmly believe that small schools are better than large schools. Closing smaller high achieving schools to optimize costs, makes sense from a cost and business sense, but not from a student education and neighborhood vitality sense. Families move to specific areas in large part due to the quality of the local public schools.
Given the increased revenues in the state, it should be capable of adequetely funding public schools without having to decimate PPS. School closures should be last resort. Any help the city can give to slow down or prevent closing high performing schools, the better.
Thanks and continue fighting for public schools.
Posted by: Lee Rumaner | Mar 18, 2006 4:27:30 PM
Then you are in favor of canning the growth subsidies, correct?
"I am in favor of anything we can do to prevent PPS from being forced to close schools urgently."
Posted by: Long View and Now | Mar 19, 2006 12:48:04 AM
You wanted input Sam - fine here it is without all the 'extras' that the other posters threw in:
HELL NO!!!!!!!
Posted by: Mmmarvel | Mar 19, 2006 10:56:58 AM
But mmarvel's still hunkydory with the massive growth subsidies for developers and big corporations!
Posted by: Long View and Now | Mar 19, 2006 11:41:07 AM
Anybody who has been to one of the City’s budget forums in recent years has filled out a survey. A comparison such as jails vs street cleaning is made asking you which is more important. Comparing school funding to something else, the questions would go something like this:
Which is more important?
Funding schools or constructing curb extensions?
Funding schools or adding bicycle infrastructure?
Funding schools or the tram?
Funding schools or adding light rail to the transit mall?
Funding schools or subsidizing a sports team, arena or stadium?
Funding schools or Willamette Greenway improvements?
Funding schools or handing out tax abatements to wealthy developers?
Funding schools or continue to have urban renewal districts use tax increment funding to siphon off tax dollars?
Funding Schools or receiving kudos as the best and/or greatest whatever in some magazine?
Funding schools or subsidizing the priority flavor of next week?
Sorry about the last question, but in reality it happens on a regular basis. Salaries are not keeping up with inflation. The cost of living is going up. Look at all the different school and non-school related bond proposals being made for the November ballot. Portland families are fleeing to the suburbs. Financially liberal politicians still think of the people as an unlimited resource to collect tax dollars from. People are tapped out. 95 percent of the revenue collected at the state level comes from individuals and small businesses while big businesses and corporations only contribute only about 5 percent. Fifty years ago it was about an even split. At the state level, tax parity must again be brought back into balance. At the City level, business as usual can no longer be the order of the day. That means some pet projects and subsidies must go away, and that requires a public discussion of priorities with all the stakeholders, including everyday taxpayers, fully involved.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Mar 19, 2006 3:13:05 PM
Hey Terry, does this mean you're willing to give up the subsidies to new suburban houses? $50K per house as it stands, not including the huge freeway expansions and new bridges.
"That means some pet projects and subsidies must go away"
Posted by: lon | Mar 19, 2006 6:36:32 PM
Sam,
With kids in schools, I sigh "yes," but at the same time, I and many of my neighbors are looking north of the River and into the Western suburbs.
I am out of energy.
Posted by: paul | Mar 19, 2006 8:23:44 PM
Actually Long View and Now -
I've NEVER been okay with subsidies to much of anything. No, I hate the subsidies to developers and "big corporations" have enough money and are successful enough through capitalism that they (usually) don't need subsidies. The hair on the back of my neck ALWAYS stands up when I hear about ANY subsidies going to ANY entity. But thanks for playing.
Posted by: Mmmarvel | Mar 19, 2006 9:55:43 PM
i hate seeing broke Portlanders squabble over how to plug the shortfall created by the failure of federal and state governments to spend our taxes the way we want them spent. State government is getting shafted by the feds, and local government is getting shafted by the state.
We have all the money we need to fund our schools, but we spend it on the war instead. If the city would take a principled stand against Bush's war and his massive tax cuts for his war profiteer buddies, we might be discussing how to unite the city to effect meaningful change, instead of arguing about how to spend our last 5 million dollars.
Specifically: the city should organize a Portland War Tax Resister's Fund. Portlanders who don't want to fund the war could withhold a portion of their federal taxes and pay that same money directly into the Portland public school system.
Posted by: mykle | Mar 20, 2006 9:41:25 AM
Sam,
First, YES. But I also think the City should be more forward looking. This is a progressive place with many firsts. Let's see some more creative ways for the City to help out schools now and well into the future.
Posted by: randy | Mar 23, 2006 2:04:08 PM
ION:
How, precisely, are suburban houses subsidized? The freeways would haul freight and carry tourists 20 hours a day with or without 4 hours of suburban commuters.
You can't possibly believe that freeways were just built to facilitate suburban development, do you?
It's like saying that Airports were only built to give affluent business owners a way to expand their client base. There's a whole lot of freight and tourists using those airports too.
Posted by: Alice | Mar 23, 2006 6:35:41 PM
I just received an e-mail from your staffer Jane Ames sent out to the many who responded to the current Portland Public School crisis. I have to say it was one of the most poorly written e-mails I've received from a public official. It was particularly concerning because it was regarding Portland Public Schools and its current funding situation. Seems to me that someone speaking on behalf of Sam for education, should be able to write a decent letter!
: /
Posted by: KDM | Mar 27, 2006 7:42:08 PM
No;
Provide the 5-10 million for assistance, but close the schools for to increase the services to the fewer schools and improve stability by taking action.
I grew up here, and if there is one thing that the school districts have shown - a complete inability to plan for the future beyond "emergency funding."
Measure 5 was a direct response to "emergency funding" which was needed every two years. I grew up to teachers telling me how horrible my parents were if they did not pass the tax. Odd how over 10 years later, the problem still seems to be happening.
As for the feds and the state letting us down - you are right, they did; now lets fix the problem.
-Lane
Posted by: Lane Inman | Mar 27, 2006 10:38:51 PM
Hhere are some comments in response to Jane Ames' letter re: schools that was sent out on behalf of Commissioner Adams:
Jane wrote:
"While funding is a catalyst for reconfiguration, I understand it to be a sound educational plan to respond to finite resources, declining student populations, and most importantly, the requirement for high quality education and strong core curricular offerings throughout the district."
We parents haven't yet seen the actual plan. The leaked draft raised so many questions about the specifics of the K-8 implementation, even among the many of us who are open to the idea of K-8, that it is hard not to call into question just how carefully and well thought through this plan and process will be.
Responding to a decline in student population by taking drastic steps that are likely to accelerate that decline, is just plain wrong.
How many young families will settle in a Portland neighborhood based on having to bus or drive their kids past a mothballed neighborhood building to a distant consolidated school?
Last year PPS data showed 14% of families left after closing five schools. If that pattern is repeated (PPS said the 14% was entirely acceptable and within the range of normal), then after closing 11 schools we would lose 492 kids, the equivalent of an entire school. This translates to $2.4 million in lost state revenue per year.
PPS apparently anticipates and perhaps has even incorporated additional student losses into their long-term plan (that may be how all the kids will fit into the consolidated buildings--they are expecting many will have left PPS). This is truly a plan to downsize our district. It is unnecessary and a terrible misstep.
"With unbounded resources, I could easily support small schools. But our state, and now our local community, has said that we have to operate within reduced budget constraints. And schools of 500 are not big schools. For K-8 schools, that's about two classes per grade."
Yet the district's model does include small schools--small focus options, that is, but not small neighborhood schools. The Creative Science School, for example, currently at 150, would be given its own separate space at Binnsmead and its own administrator, with a plan to eventually "grow to 250." How come we can "afford" that small program but not a neighborhood school of around 300? The inequity and inconsistency is glaring and outrageous.
The district is defining what it considers "affordable." Its staffing ratios determine what size of school is "supportable." These are all managerial choices. They could just as easily have decided that supporting right-sized neighborhood schools, located where kids live, is their "sustainable" model. They could be adding Pre-K in buildings that have space and championing their neighborhood schools to draw in young families-- because contrary to PPS spin, people ARE having babies!
The enrollment decline is only a self-fulfilling (and accelerating) prophesy because PPS decisions are making it so.
A K-8 of 500 is not big, you are right. Most of the envisioned K-8s in the leaked draft, however, are considerably larger. Some are slated to grow in place from a K-5, which is good; others call for placing a K-5 within a 6-8, which is not a good way to create a successful K-8.
Providing a consistent quality basic curriculum across the district is a laudable goal. Yet what about consistency and quality of curriculum for our 6-8th graders. The plan is for an elementary model, which means fewer (or no) electives, less staff support, fewer levels of math available (due to lower numbers of 6-8th graders), etc. Middle schools like West Sylvan will remain untouched, with a rich array of electives and curriculum; others will make do with one teacher trying to do everything, and occasional "PE, Art and/or music" with maybe a language teacher rotating through one semester a year.
Also, at several of the new K-8s, there will be a lopsided feeder pattern (existing K-5s still feeding into the building) resulting in a disproportionate number of 6-8th kids--again, not sound educationally or socially.
Now maybe all this will be fixed in the April 4 final draft. I sure hope so. We just have to wait and see. But it's hard for parents to see themselves as partners in a plan that is being decided behind closed doors.
"But there will be opportunity for identifying issues and working out problems."
That opportunity will occur from April 4-24. Yes, there will be a phase-in of a year or more, but after April 24 the plan is set in place. What you and many other supporters praise as Vicki's "strong leadership" to many others feels like a top-down "done deal." Three weeks' time for public questions and input to a plan that will transform our entire school district, is unacceptable.
This process should have started last fall (as Vicki promised future school changes would do so, when she closed schools in March of last year.) We knew back then that Salem had failed us and that the local option/ITax were expiring. We could have had months to talk as a community and learn about K-8 and how it will be implemented, etc. Instead this is being forced through in the worst possible way. I hope it will be successful but I am not willing to blindly assume that the plan is a good one, and I do not think that three week's public "input" is a proper process.
I cannot imagine the City trying to force through a wholesale change that will affect the entire city in this way. I am very disappointed that Sam and others are standing by and letting PPS act in this drastic and undemocratic manner, while scolding parents and citizens who object.
Ruth Adkins
SW Portland
Posted by: Ruth Adkins | Mar 28, 2006 7:54:57 AM
I agree with Ruth Adkins' post above about the letter sent out by Jane Ames on behalf of Commissioner Adams regarding schools.
Commissioner Adams, Why is your staff person saying that she understands the Superintendent's plan to be a "sound educational plan" when the final plan hasn't even been released yet? The letter sent on your behalf sounded like if was drafted by the school district's PR department.
Posted by: N Breedlove | Mar 28, 2006 1:10:49 PM
Sam, with Jane Ames' letter below, you have lost our support and our future votes! Many of the people in my community who received your letter are incensed. We once admired you, Sam, but now you have kicked us in the head for caring about our kids' education and the future of our City and neighborhoods!
Here in the Ash Creek Neighborhood in SW Portland, the ONLY urban amenity we had was Smith Elementary School. We do not have a central business district, library, coffee shop or community center close enough to walk or bike to. We lack sidewalks and storm sewers.
Sixteen years ago, my husband and I moved here from Detroit, Michigan. From Michigan, we selected the Ash Creek Neighborhood to live, based solely on the academic record and sylvan location of Smith Elementary. Most people will make one investment in life, and that is their investment in their HOME; most of us will not own stocks and bonds.
With the loss of Smith, our beloved school building sits vacant, the trees tagged with spray paint by gangs. Our Smith students were not only broken up by PPS into three different schools (two of which are highly substandard compared to Smith) -- there has been a diaspora of our neighborhood students because of complete distrust of PPS.
Some families from Ash Creek have moved back to their childhood homes in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Vermont. Smith students and families were so betrayed by PPS, a full third of our students have pulled out for the following schools (in addition to out of state losses and home schooling): St. Anthony's; St. Clare's; St. John Fisher; Oregon Episcopal School; Riverdale; Portland Jewish Academy; and Beaverton, Lake Oswego, West Linn and Happy Valley Schools. The tax base from these students has been lost from PPS forever, along with siblings who would have attended PPS.
PPS says it makes "data-driven decisions," but the fact is, they make decisions without citizen input AND THEN DRIVE FALSE DATA TO SUPPORT THOSE UNDEMOCRATIC DECISION. Their demographic data, capture rate data, FTE data and other criterion used are full of holes this year, as they were last year.
The Real Estate Trust and the Innovation Partnership have never represented the interest of students and parents in this District. The citizenry knows RET / IP represent the interests of people like the Portland Schools Foundation, the Tom Walshes, PDC, Homer Williams, HAP, etc. We simply don't know how to stop the privatization and down-sizing of our school district.
I guess after last year's school closures, when you did not lift a finger to help the closing five schools, we should have known you would continue to represent the rapacious, greedy real estate developers in this town, NOT the citizenry.
We expect you to fight against the privatization and down-sizing of our school district, fight for our neighborhood schools, and help parents get Vicki Phillips out of town. Instead, you kick us in the head with a letter that sounds exactly like it was written by PPS Communications and PR Departments. This community deserves an apology.
Lynn Schore and Steve Linder
Portland's Urban Livability Under Attack
Every community deserves a well-sited neighborhood school. As with the location of any parcel of real estate, the location of the neighborhood school is one of the most important factors in determining its value to the neighborhood. The school location greatly affects the quality of life for students. The neighborhood elementary school is a keystone in the arch to livability for urban families in Portland.
Every market study of residential real estate provides indicators about the quality of the neighborhood school. A major intrinsic element of value in a community is the SCHOOL within that neighborhood. The neighborhood school is an indicator of the vitality of the community. When a neighborhood loses its school, it not only loses its identity and pride: it becomes impoverished compared to any other neighborhood WITH a school.
These qualities of a school's location are both tangible and intangible.
The tangible, measurable qualities of a school's location include:
-Safety / health: the number of students who can walk to school and not have to cross major traffic arterials
-Safety / health: the number of students who must be driven or bussed to school
-Safety / crime: the number crimes reported near or at the school location
-Safety and air quality
-Noise pollution level
-Acreage of play field and age of play structure
-Loss of current and future students and monies due to the loss of neighborhood schools
The intangible qualities of a school's location include:
-Attending school with your neighbors, with families who know your children
-Opportunity to walk or bike to school
-Opportunity to participate in academic and enrichment activities during non-school hours
-Opportunity to participate in exercise and sports during non-school hours
-Retaining historic buildings, neighborhood identity and pride
-Retaining property values for neighborhoods; maintaining the resulting tax base
-Synergy of school and adjacent city park
-Support from school neighbors of all ages, particularly parents and community elders
-Disaster support for students and neighborhood citizens in case of earthquake, fire, terrorist event or other disaster; communities are developing Neighborhood Emergency Teams (NET), promoted by the Portland Fire Bureau and Office of Emergency Management, and having neighborhood schools available is critical to our communities
-Loss of current and future students and volunteerism due to the loss of quality schools
In Portland, the "City of Neighborhoods," it seems that our civic leaders care more about dog parks and skate parks than neighborhood schools. Most of our elected representatives and media never mention the history and benefits of neighborhood schools. For a city and state that so treasure open areas and green space, the fact that PPS and our government will not maintain our neighborhood schools is appalling.
Superintendent Phillips' 'leaked' closure proposals will diminish property values in Portland neighborhoods, make Portland less competitive, and traumatize children and families. Every day, Superintendent Phillips should be selling the benefits of good neighborhood schools to Portland businesses, institutions and homeowners, not tearing down neighborhood schools.
Up against stiff suburban competition, Portland's urban home neighborhoods need help. Don't deny our families their beautiful, quiet, well-sited and BELOVED neighborhood schools! We demand that PPS administration stop destroying Portland's neighborhood schools, which have long been the heart and soul of this great city, and the reason for PPS's success in the past.
Posted by: Lynn Schore | Mar 29, 2006 10:30:14 AM
Why hasn't PPS joined the lawsuit against the state? Since most will agree Portland is taking the biggest hit, shouldn't they be at the forefront of demanding more?
I see the need for a bridge for the 06-07 school year as it is too late to try and wrestle additional funding, but PPS better be ready to put up a fight in the leg's '07 session!
Posted by: MarkDaMan | Mar 29, 2006 11:54:06 AM
I've said it before, and it looks like I need to say it again:
Stop funding growth with our tax dollars, and there will be more than enough money for our public schools.
Anyone listening?
Sam?
Others?
Posted by: Long View and Now | Mar 30, 2006 10:53:04 AM
"Stop funding growth with our tax dollars, and there will be more than enough money for our public schools."
Or, demand the legislature do it's constitional duties and fully fund Oregonian's education so cities can focus on creating livable cities.
Posted by: MarkDaMan | Mar 30, 2006 1:13:25 PM
MarkDaMan
so cities can focus on creating livable cities.
JK: That sounds like a PDC line. In case you hadn't noticed, Portland is becoming less livable every day:
Middle income people can no longer afford home ownership due to the artificaial shortage of land. The area is unlivable for them.
Schools are being closed because they are short of money while we continue to pour money into wealthy developer's pockets. The city is becoming less livable for childreand and parrents of school age children.
Eveyone is stuck in traffic congestion. City and Metro refuse to deal with this problem and they make it worse by increasing housing density. The city is becoming less livable for people who use the roads.
Admittedly the city is becoming more livable for people with a lot of time to waste in congestion and for thoise on mass transit welfare. City policies are filling Portland with unproductive people.
Thanks
JK
Posted by: jim karlock | Apr 7, 2006 6:37:13 PM
What could be the best thing to happen to PDX in years is being "given" to a California company so that more of our jobs and money goes south. A local company committed a percentage of profits back to the schools and isn't being considered. What gives?
Posted by: Bob Triblet | Apr 11, 2006 11:45:42 AM
Post your comment
Please note: your email address, although required to post, will not be visible. We remove inappropriate or offensive content, and content deemed improper by State and City election and ethics law. The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of the office or the City of Portland.
If we, meaning the public, decide to give the Portland Schools a "one-time" gift, then I believe that we should demand that the Portland Schools show us how this one time "gift" was used dollar-by-dollar to reduce their on-going expenses, not just to continue business as usual. Accontability?
And when are we going to hear about cutting "administrative and supervisory costs" rather than "teacher and school closing" costs?
And is the current "street comment" that;
"if they closed all the schools and laid off all the teachers"
they still couldn't pay all their the bills, have any ring of truth?
Posted by: Bryan H. Ackler | Mar 17, 2006 3:31:02 PM